Click here for Microsoft Word Version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) File No. ENF 98-09
All American Telephone, Inc. )
) NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Adopted: September 5, 2001 Released:
September 10, 2001
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
In this Order, we assess a forfeiture of $920,000
against All American Telephone, Inc. (All American) for willful
or repeated violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), and our rules and orders. We find that All
American willfully or repeatedly violated section 258 of the Act1
and the Commission's related rules2 and orders3 by changing the
preferred interexchange carriers (PICs) designated by 12
consumers without their authorization, a practice commonly
referred to as ``slamming.'' We find All American's slamming
violations particularly egregious because All American, in
requesting local exchange carriers (LECs) to make the PIC
changes, relied on Letters of Authorization (LOAs) that contained
forgeries of the signatures of consumers.
II. BACKGROUND
The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance of
our July 6, 1998 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)4 are fully
recited in the NAL and need not be reiterated at length. Between
September 1997 and March 1998, the Commission received numerous
written consumer complaints alleging slamming by All American.
The Commission investigated 13 of these complaints. Each
complainant contended that All American had converted his or her
designated PIC without authorization through the apparent use of
falsified or forged LOAs. All of the complainants provided sworn
statements and evidence in support of their complaints.
Following an investigation of the above complaints,
which included an opportunity for All American to respond to the
allegations raised by complainants, the Commission issued the All
American NAL. The Commission found that All American's failure to
obtain the complainants' authorization before submitting PIC-
change requests apparently violated section 258 of the Act and
the Commission's rules and orders against slamming.5 In
addition, the Commission determined that the complainants had
provided compelling evidence that All American apparently relied
on falsified or forged LOAs in effecting these unauthorized
conversions. Indeed, the Commission noted that several
complainants had provided evidence that ``information on the
purported LOA is incorrect, or, as in the case of a purported
signature by Ms. Kitay's deceased husband, is clearly
fabricated.''6
In view of the facts and circumstances surrounding All
American's apparent slamming violations, the Commission found
that All American was apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture
of $80,000 for each of the 13 unauthorized conversions, resulting
in a total forfeiture amount of $1,040,000.7 In proposing this
forfeiture, the Commission stated that, despite the Commission's
earlier warnings to interexchange carriers about the use of
forged LOAs, All American had apparently willfully or repeatedly
engaged in a clear pattern of fraudulent conduct to intentionally
slam consumers.8 The Commission noted that this pattern of
conduct distinguished the case from prior NALs involving forged
LOAs, and therefore justified the $80,000 forfeiture amount for
each of the unauthorized conversions.9
III. DISCUSSION
While All American does not deny that it submitted PIC-
change orders to the complainants' local exchange carriers, the
company contends that we should rescind the proposed forfeiture
with regard to all 13 slamming complaints in the record because
the Commission failed to establish the ``element of intent
necessary to sustain a forgery finding.''10 All American further
asserts that the Commission should not consider the Saines and
Varughese complaints in its forfeiture calculation because
neither complaint specifically alleged that All American forged
the signatures at issue.11 Further, All American contends that it
has expert testimony proving that the signature on the Joyce LOA
was not, in fact, forged.12 Finally, All American argues that
even if it is found liable, the proposed forfeiture is excessive
in light of: 1) Commission precedent; 2) All American's asserted
history of compliance; and 3) All American's alleged inability to
pay the fine. We take these arguments in turn.
A. Imposition of a Forfeiture
All American contends that the it cannot be held liable
for any of the 13 alleged slamming violations because the
Commission failed to present evidence that All American intended
to defraud consumers through the use of apparently forged or
falsified LOAs.13 We disagree. First, section 258 of the Act
imposes liability on a carrier responsible for submitting an
unauthorized charge, regardless of intent.14 Further, the
Commission has stated on numerous occasions that a carrier's
alleged lack of knowledge concerning forged LOAs does not
exonerate the carrier.15 Even if All American's marketing agents
forged the LOAs at issue, without the company's actual knowledge,
section 217 of the Act provides that a carrier such as All
American is nevertheless liable for its agents' actions.16
As the Commission stated in earlier forfeiture orders,
it has long been established that the word ``willfully,'' as used
in section 503(b) of the Act, does not require a demonstration
that the carrier knew that it was acting unlawfully.17 Rather,
section 503(b) requires only a finding that the carrier knew it
was doing the acts in question and that the acts were not
accidental.18 We find here that All American knew it was
submitting the changes, and reject All American's claim that it
is not liable for the violations because it lacked actual
knowledge that the LOAs were forged or that its actions would
defraud consumers.19 Furthermore, we note that section 503(b)
authorizes the Commission to assess forfeitures for willful or
repeated violations of the Act.20 The record supports a finding
that All American's violations were repeated, as well as willful,
within the meaning of the Act.21
Moreover, All American's argument must fail under the
express terms of section 258 and our implementing rules, which
prohibit the submission of unauthorized PIC changes. For purposes
of determining All American's liability for slamming violations,
we need not determine whether All American, its marketing agents,
or some other party forged or signed the LOAs at issue here.
Rather, we need only find (1) that the complainants did not
authorize the PIC changes by signing the LOAs, and (2) that All
American submitted these unauthorized PIC changes to the
complainants' LECs.22 As noted in the NAL, All American concedes
that it used the LOAs in question in submitting PIC changes for
the complainants.23 Further, the complainants contend that they
did not authorize the LOAs relied upon by All American, and many
have noted that the LOAs at issue bear erroneous dates,
misspelled or incorrect names, and other indicia of falsification
or forgery.24 With the exception of the three complaints
discussed below, All American has submitted no evidence to
counter the complainants' assertions that they were slammed, or
that the LOAs were forged or falsified. Therefore, we conclude
that, except to the extent discussed below, All American is
liable for each of the proposed slamming violations discussed in
the NAL.
B. Contested LOAs
1. Saines Complaint
All American asks the Commission to exclude the Saines
complaint from its forfeiture calculation.25 All American claims
that the record lacks adequate evidence that the Saines LOA was
forged. Noting that the Commission determined that its ``own
review of signatures . . . demonstrates that there is little
similarity between the purported signatures on LOAs and the
exemplars provided by the complainants,''26 All American argues
that the Federal Rules of Evidence preclude the Commission from
rendering an opinion concerning the authenticity of Ms. Saines'
signature.27 All American asserts that under the Federal Rules
of Evidence, non-expert testimony as to handwriting is
permissible only when ``based upon familiarity not acquired for
purposes of the litigation.''28
All American's contentions do not persuade us to alter
our determination that All American slammed Ms. Saines in
violation of the Act and our rules and orders. The record
demonstrates that Ms. Saines never authorized a PIC change in
accordance with our rules and orders.29 As we found in the NAL,
the Saines LOA bears an incorrect zip code, as well as a
signature that does not resemble Ms. Saines' signature on her
complaint.30 The record also includes a sworn statement from Ms.
Saines alleging that ``[t]he signature on the [LOA] form is a
forgery. I did not sign the form. My age and the zip code
written on the form are also incorrect.''31 Second, All American
concedes that it used the LOA in question in submitting a PIC
change for Ms. Saines. In light of the foregoing, we conclude
that the record supports a finding that All American used a
forged LOA to effect a switch of Ms. Saines' long distance
service provider, in violation of section 258 of the Act.
We reject All American's claim that the Federal Rules
of Evidence bar us from finding a discrepancy between the
purported signatures on the Saines LOA and the exemplar provided
by Ms. Saines. As an initial matter, the rules cited by All
American are inapposite: there is no issue here concerning the
``testimony'' of a ``non-expert''32 about the authenticity of Ms.
Saines' handwriting.33 To the extent that All American is
arguing that the Commission reached an improper legal conclusion
concerning the signatures at issue, we disagree. It was within
the Commission's discretion under section 503(b) of the Act to
observe the difference in the signatures submitted as belonging
to Ms. Saines.34 Moreover, we note that the Commission made its
determination in the absence of any evidence to counter Ms.
Saines' sworn declaration35 that the signature on the LOA a
forgery, and that her age and zip code written on the form are
incorrect.36
2. Varughese Complaint
In its Response, All American concedes that Mr.
Varughese did not sign the LOA, and that the LOA instead bears
the signature of an individual named ``Sara Thomas.''37
Nevertheless, All American argues that the Commission should have
obtained an allegation of forgery from Mr. Varughese or an
authenticated signature of Sara Thomas in order to demonstrate
that the LOA at issue was in fact forged.38
We find that the record contains uncontradicted
evidence that All American switched Mr. Varughese's long distance
service provider without his authorization, in violation of
section 258 of the Act and the Commission's slamming rules and
orders. However, we agree that it is unclear from the record
whether All American used a forged or falsified LOA to effect
this unauthorized switch. Accordingly, we will reduce the
forfeiture amount of the Varughese slamming violation from
$80,000 to $40,000, the standard forfeiture amount for slamming
violations.
3. Joyce Complaint
All American argues that the Commission should exclude
the Joyce Complaint from its calculation of All American's
forfeiture.39 All American contends that Ms. Joyce's declaration
does not support the proposed penalty, 40 despite Ms. Joyce's
contention that she did not sign the LOA, and that the LOA bears
numerous mistakes, including an incorrect age.41 All American
also presents evidence from two handwriting experts who concluded
that the signature on the Joyce LOA was genuine by comparing the
signature on the LOA with Ms. Joyce's complaint and declaration
to the Commission.42 While this evidence is not conclusive, for
purposes of this proceeding we will not include this complaint in
our forfeiture calculation in light of the conflicting evidence
in the record. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of the
forfeiture by $80,000.
C. Appropriateness of Assessed Forfeiture Amount
All American argues that even if it is found liable for
a forfeiture, the Commission's proposed penalty should be
substantially reduced. All American contends that the Commission
impermissibly based the proposed forfeiture amount on the
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement43 when only three
complaints stem from facts that occurred after the Forfeiture
Policy Statement was released.44 All American asserts that the
Policy Statement recommends a standard $40,000 forfeiture amount
for slamming violations. Moreover, All American argues, the
proposed $80,000 fine for forgery violations is disproportionate
compared to forfeitures the Commission imposed on other
carriers45 who had engaged in egregious slamming conduct.46
Finally, All American contends that its history of compliance and
its inability to pay warrant a reduction of the proposed
penalty.47
We reject All American's contentions, and conclude that
the proposed penalty is appropriate and fully supported by
applicable precedent. The Commission based its forfeiture on 13
independent slamming complaints against All American, and rests
on a calculation of $80,000 for each instance in which All
American engaged in slamming by relying on forged or falsified
LOAs. As discussed below, this determination is consistent with:
1) our discretion under section 503(b) of the Act; 2) the
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement; and 3) other Commission
enforcement actions aimed at egregious slamming conduct involving
forged or falsified LOAs.48
Contrary to All American's assertion, the Forfeiture
Policy Statement does not circumscribe our well-established
section 503(b) authority to assess an $80,000 forfeiture amount
for forgery complaints. At the time of the violations at issue,
section 503(b) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess a
forfeiture of up to $110,000 for each violation of the Act or of
any rule, regulation, or order issued under the Act.49 When the
Commission issued the Forfeiture Policy Statement in 1997, it was
merely to provide guidelines for assessing monetary forfeitures
under section 503(b) of the Act.50 Under these guidelines, the
Commission established base forfeiture amounts for a wide range
of violations, including a $40,000 standard forfeiture amount for
slamming. Significantly, however, we retained the discretion to
depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-
case basis, under our general forfeiture authority contained in
section 503(b) of the Act. Moreover, the Forfeiture Policy
Statement specifically provides that the base forfeiture amount
can be increased by ``upward adjustment criteria'' such as the
egregiousness of the misconduct at issue.51 Accordingly, while
All American is correct in asserting that many of the complaints
at issue in the NAL stem from facts originating before the
effective date of the Forfeiture Policy Statement, All American's
argument is of no legal significance. The guidelines in the
Forfeiture Policy Statement are just that: an aid to exercising
discretionary authority that the Commission has possessed since
section 503(b) was adopted in 1934.
Nor do we find merit in All American's claim that the
proposed $80,000 forfeiture amount is inconsistent with
forfeitures we have imposed on other carriers who have engaged in
slamming through the use of forged or falsified LOAs. First, All
American's reference to the CCN Revocation Order52 is inapposite.
That case involved revocation of the Fletcher Companies'
operating authority in addition to the imposition of monetary
penalties, which is not the situation here. We likewise reject
All American's comparisons to other cases adopted prior to the
All American proceeding. The Commission has discretion to decide
in a particular case that violations should result in a higher
level of forfeiture than in the past. In the All American NAL,
we noted our prior warnings to carriers that we would take
``swift and decisive enforcement action, including the imposition
of substantial monetary fines, against any carrier found to have
engaged in slamming, particularly the practice of relying on
forged LOAs.''53 When, despite those prior warnings, we received
numerous slamming complaints against All American that
demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct to slam consumers through
the use of forged and falsified LOAs (including a purported
signature from a complainant's deceased husband), we exercised
our discretion to impose forfeitures of $80,000 for each instance
in which All American had used forged or falsified LOAs to slam
the complainants.54 Since the release of the All American NAL,
we have imposed similar forfeitures in other proceedings
involving egregious slamming violations.55 Indeed, the
Commission's subsequent policies and procedures have consistently
reflected a forfeiture amount of $80,000 per forged LOA because
we continue to find forgeries to be particularly egregious
slamming violations.56
C. Assessment Factors for Forfeiture Amount
1. History of Compliance
All American further argues that a reduction in the
proposed forfeiture is warranted because it has a history of
compliance before the Commission.57 Even though All American
appears not to have been the subject of other official action by
the Commission, the complaints for which the NAL was issued
reflect an egregious pattern of slamming conduct. When we view
this pattern of violations over such a short time period, we are
convinced that it would be inappropriate to reduce the forfeiture
based on All American's asserted ``history of compliance.''
2. Ability to Pay
All American last argues that payment of the proposed
forfeiture would ``severely impact All American's ability to
provide service'' and could cause All American to discontinue its
operations.58 All American submits that the proposed forfeiture
represents approximately 6 percent of its 1997 gross revenues,
and that it suffered a net operating loss for 1997. Finally, All
American notes that due to the problems leading up to the NAL,
All American has been under new management since June 25, 1998.
According to All American, new management has made some changes
that have resulted in a cash flow shortage that would ``further
impact All American's ability to pay the full amount of the
forfeiture.''59
We decline to reduce the forfeiture based on All
American's arguments. We have consistently held that an
appropriate indicator of a carrier's ability to pay a forfeiture
is its gross revenues.60 While All American states in a footnote
that its 1997 gross revenues were $18,032,982,61 All American
fails to provide any supporting documentation or affidavits to
support its claim. We therefore determine that All American has
not met its burden of proof on this issue.62 Nor has All American
provided any documentation to support its assertion that the
proposed forfeiture should be reduced in light of its $2,000 net
operating loss for 1997.63 The record must contain more than
such unsupported statements in order for the Commission to
evaluate the effect of financial indicators such as a carrier's
gross revenues or net losses.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b)
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4), that All American
Telephone Company, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States
Government the sum of nine hundred twenty thousand dollars
($920,000) for violating Section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 258,
as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing preferred
interexchange carrier conversions. Payment shall be made in the
manner provided for in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules
within 30 days from the release of this order.64 If the
forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case will
be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
to section 504(a) of the Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified United States mail to Mr.
Ronald C. Darnell, All American Telephone, Inc., 9001 Airport
Freeway, Suite 570, Fort Worth, Texas, 76180.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
_________________________
1 Section 258 states in pertinent part that ``no
telecommunications carrier shall submit . . . a change in a
subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' 47
U.S.C. § 258.
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150. Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150
are now codified at section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules.
65 FR 47678, 47690 (2000). Because All American's apparent
violations occurred prior to November 28, 2000, the effective
date of the revised rules, sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 were the
applicable Commission rules in effect during the relevant time
period.
3 Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance
Carriers, First Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-135 (rel. May 3,
2000); Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance
Carriers, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in
nonrelevant part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May
18, 1999) (Stay Order); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10674
(1997); Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of
Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) (LOA
Order), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995) (In-Bound Stay
Order); Policies and Rules concerning Changing Long Distance
Carriers, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992) (PIC Change Order), recon.
denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and
Divestiture-Related Tariffs, 101 FCC Rcd 911 (1985) (Allocation
Order), recon. denied, 102 FCC2d 503 (1985); Investigation of
Access and Divestiture-Related Tariffs, 101 FCC 2d 935
(Com.Car.Bur. 1985) (Waiver Order), recon. denied, 102 FCC 2d 503
(1985).
4 See All American Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998) (All American
NAL).
5 Id. at 15040.
6 Id. at 15048.
7 The Commission has authority pursuant to section 503(b) of
the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), to assess a forfeiture penalty
against a common carrier if the Commission determines that the
carrier has ``willfully or repeatedly'' failed to comply with the
provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission. For a violation to be willful, it need
not be intentional. Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC
Rcd 4387 (1991); see also Implementation of the Subscriber
Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes
of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129,
Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).
8 All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.
9 Id.
10 Response at 16-17. All American also erroneously contends
that the NAL did not cite All American for apparent violations of
the Commission's rules against slamming, but only for relying
``on LOAs apparently containing forgeries . . . .'' Id. at 5-6.
To the contrary, the NAL found apparent violations of the
Commission's slamming rules and orders, as well as the Act. See
All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15040.
11 Response at 13-16.
12 Id. at 10-13.
13 Id. at 16-17.
14 47 U.S.C. § 258 (stating, in pertinent part, that ``[n]o
telecommunications carrier shall submit . . . a change in a
subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'');
see also Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers'
Long Distance Carriers, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).
15 See, e.g., Qwest Communications Int'l, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 182 (1999).
16 See 47 U.S.C. § 217.
17 See, e.g., Amer-I-Net Services Corporation, Order of
Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000) (Amer-I-Net Services
Corporation Forfeiture Order).
18 Id.
19 Nor do we find merit in All American's suggestion that
forged LOAs should somehow be more acceptable to the Commission
because we previously acknowledged that forgeries are an
industry-wide problem. Response at 7-8. If anything, the fact
that falsified and forged LOAs are a widespread -- and well-
publicized -- problem makes them even more egregious when they
occur.
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b) (emphasis added).
21 See supra note 7.
22 The Commission's rules and orders require that a carrier
wishing to effectuate an authorized change in a consumer's
designated preferred carrier submit the change order to an
executing carrier, who is then obligated to make the change
absent some indication that the request is not legitimate. See
47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150. Section 64.1150 specifies the
various methods that carriers can use to verify consumer requests
to change a preferred carrier. For example, a carrier may elect
to use a letter of agency (LOA) as the basis for submitting a
carrier change order. Pursuant to section 64.1150, the LOA must
be signed ``by the subscriber to the telephone line(s) requesting
the preferred carrier change.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150.
23 See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15042.
24 Id. at 15048.
25 Response at 13-16.
26 All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.
27 Response at 15.
28 Id. (citing Fed. R.Evid. 901(b)(2), (3)).
29 Id.
30 All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.
31 See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).
32 Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the
Commission.
33 Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies
here, the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of
Evidence may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better
served by so doing.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.351.
34 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
35 See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).
36 See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49.
37 Response at 42.
38 Response at 14.
39 Response at 10.
40 Id. at 11. All American claims that Ms. Joyce did not
``definitively assert'' that her signature is a forfeiture,
instead stating that, ``[t]o the best of [her] recollection,''
she did not sign LOA. Id.
41 See Joyce Declaration at 1-2.
42 Id. at 10-13.
43 See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997),
recon. denied, CC Docket No. 95-6 (rel. Dec. 28, 1999)
(Forfeiture Policy Statement). The Forfeiture Policy Statement
was effective on October 14, 1997.
44 Response at 27.
45 Id. at 19-26 (citing, for example, the CCN Revocation Order,
13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998), in which the Commission, in addition to
revoking the Fletcher Companies' operating authority, imposed
forfeitures of $15,000 per slamming complaint plus an additional
$5,000 for each instance where Fletcher failed to respond to the
Commission's notices of informal complaint).
46 Response at 23 (citing LCI International Worldwide
Telecommunications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
10 FCC Rcd 11451 (Com.Car.Bur. 1995)).
47 Response at 34-36.
48 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.
49 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. The Commission subsequently amended
its rules to increase the maximum penalties to account for
inflation. The revised penalties apply to violations that
occurred after November 13, 2000. In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, FCC-347 (rel.
Sept. 19, 2000).
50 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17090.
51 Id.
52 CCN Revocation Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599, 13608 n.50 (1998).
53 All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.
54 Id. at 15051.
55 See, e.g., BDP NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 348 (finding apparent
liability for a forfeiture of $80,000 for each unauthorized
conversion of 30 complainants through deceptive marketing
practices, for a total forfeiture of $2,400,000); Amer-I-Net
Services Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15
FCC Rcd 3118 (2000)(finding apparent liability for a forfeiture
of of $80,000 for, inter alia, each of 16 forgery complaints, for
a total of $1,360,000); Brittan Communications International
Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd
4852 (2000) (finding apparent liability for, inter alia, a
forfeiture of $80,000 for each of 12 forgery complaints, for a
total forfeiture of $1,120,000); American Telephone and Telegraph
Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 00-
446 (rel. Dec. 21, 2000) (finding, inter alia, apparent liability
for $80,000 forfeiture for each of 2 violations resulting from
AT&T's reliance on forged LOAs); Vista Group Int'l, Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13814 (1999)
(finding apparent liability for $80,000 forfeiture for, inter
alia, each of seven complaints involving deceptive marketing
practices, for a total of $1,000,000); Coleman Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Local Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13786 (1999)(finding apparent liability
for $80,000 forfeiture for each unauthorized conversion of 14
complainants through deceptive marketing practices, for a total
forfeiure of $1,120,000); Qwest Communications NAL, 14 FCC Rcd
182 (1999) (finding apparent liability for, inter alia, $80,000
forfeiture for each of 22 forgery complaints, contributing to a
total forfeiture of $2,080,000).
56 See supra note 55.
57 Response at 34-35. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement provides that a history of overall compliance is one of
the factors the Commission may take into account in its
consideration of downward adjustment of a forfeiture. Forfeiture
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17116. Ironically, All American
previously argued that the Forfeiture Policy Statement did not
apply to the instant proceeding. See Response at 27.
58 Response at 35-36.
59 Id. at 36.
60 See, e.g., Target Telecom Forfeiture Order, Order of
Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4456, 4464 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998).
61 Response at 36 n.107.
62 See, e.g., Long Distance Services, Inc., Order of
Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4444, 4452 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998) (LDS
Forfeiture Order).
63 Response at 36.
64 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
Reference should be made on the All American Telephone Company,
Inc.'s check or money order to ``NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008.'' Such
remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.